---

The D-II dilemma:
Who is it for?

WE had to have known there was a chance something like this might happen.

We should have seen something like this coming.

When Hawaii high school sports went to a two-division format in some sports a couple of years ago, everybody thought it was a great idea.

(And it is a great idea.)

But that's also the problem.

That everybody thinks it's a great idea.

Too many people think Division II is a great idea, so much so that now -- and this has been excellently documented by our Paul Honda -- spots in Division II state tournaments have increased and so Division I state fields have decreased. And now that we realize what just happened, some people are getting all upset.

But really, we should have seen this trend coming.

This has been a potential problem from the beginning, just because of the way the whole thing was set up.

Or rather, not set up.

I've always liked the idea of Division II very much. But -- and I'm about to repeat myself again here -- what has always been my complaint with it?

It's this question -- who is Division II really for?

And that's never been established.

There is no uniform rule as to who is or isn't Division II. The leagues (and so, to some small extent, the schools themselves) are allowed to make their own lists -- arguably arbitrarily.

It was never set or said exactly what Division II was.

So while Division II may have been originally dreamed up as merely an addendum to the Big Show, a chance to let the have-nots have their day, it has grown to the point that the Division I state field just got cut.

And why not? Half the state thinks it is Division II.

That's the problem now. Who is it for? The question has been answered. And the answer has been unanimous:

"Us!" everybody said.

And who will tell them they aren't really Division II?

(Well, me. But nobody listens.)

You can't blame them. So many schools see this as a way to finally have a chance to compete for a title. They're dropping down a weight class, the way wrestlers do. So many have done it that it only makes sense now to have the two tournaments on equal footing -- even if in other ways that doesn't make any sense at all.

I always maintained that Division II should have been set aside for the smallest of schools, the ones that truly operate on a different level than the rest.

But without any guidelines or rules as to what constitutes a Division II school, we've seen how that has turned out.

The problem, really, isn't that so many of these big-school "mid-majors" do or don't belong in Division II. It's that Hawaii really doesn't have two divisions -- it has three (but it doesn't have enough schools to classify again).

First, there are the usual suspects, the absolute elite. They win -- or at least contend -- every year. And it doesn't always equate to pure enrollment numbers, either. And they're not always elite in every sport. But you get the idea. Yes, it's tough to have to compete against these guys.

Then, there is everybody else. Some have taken everybody else to mean Division II. That's not how it should be, but it's how it has gone. Some big schools elect to drop down just because they haven't won in a while.

There are many reasons why big schools in this second group haven't contended consistently, or, in some cases, in a long, long time. It's complicated, that's true. But it doesn't mean they should drop down and try to put themselves on the same level as Lanai, for example.

And let's stick with that example. This is the third group. I thought this would be Division II. But instead, it's Division III. Only there is no Division III.

Even under the new system, these schools are still the underdogs, often going against Oahu schools that dwarf them in size. Or as Hana volleyball coach Manuel Oliveira pointed out at the recent Hawaii Interscholastic Athletic Directors Association conference, offer "the equivalent of scholarships."

And now Division II has grown so popular -- in membership, if not at the gate -- that the Division I state tournament has been slashed to make room.

This is dangerous.

The people who make these decisions need to sit down and decide this now, and answer the question they tried to ignore the first time around: Why are we doing this? Who, exactly, is Division II for?

Because if we think a percentage of 50-50 is a problem, between the divisions, just think what it would be like if it went 25-75.

Cutting down the state tournament further isolates the elite. It hurts the group of Division I schools for whom a good season would be getting to the dance. And after a while you'll have another batch of D-I schools saying forget this.

We should just drop down and be Division II, too.